Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 411, Henry Dow, New Jersey

SERVICE
NUMBER
New Jersey
Dow, Henry Beziah
W. 411
CONTENTS

5.338
New Jersey.
Keyiah Dowdie
widow of Henry, Dow
who died on the
of in the State of
who was a private in the commanded
by Captain N J of the commanded
by in the Revolution
line for 2 Years.
Inscribed on the Roll of Trenton at the rate of 80. Dollars 00 Cents per annum, to commence on the 21 st day of March, 1831. and end December 19 th 1840.
Certificate of Pension issued the 5 th day of Dec r . 1856 and sent to
Arrears to the 4th of J. J. Coombs. Semi-annual allowances ending Present?
Revolutionary Claim, Act July 4, 1836, Section the
Recorded by Book 36
G. H. Getty Vol. 1
Clerk, Page 130
130.

Declaration in order to obtain the pension which monies have been due to Hester Doro Weston of Henry Doro who was a Revolutionary Soldier State of New Jersey County of Somerset 3/90
On this 17 th day of August 1846 personally appeared before the Court of Common Pleas for said County John H. Doro Son of Henry Doro, a resident of the County and State aforesaid - said deponent aged 70 years, who being first duly sworn according to law doth make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the provisions of such Law of En- -glish as may apply to the case. That Henry Doro the father of this deponent enlisted in the service of the United States in the Regiment of Col. Spencer early in the War, in Hunterdon Sussex County and State aforesaid, and served during the War. This Deponent further saith that his father the said Henry Doro and was married to Hester Johnson on the March 1773. And that he died November 27 th 1819. That his mother Hester Doro died December 18 th 1840 and that this deponent on his own account as well as on behalf of the other heirs now living makes this de- -claration in order to obtain the amount of pensions that would have been due and paid to the said Hester Doro her mother had she applied during her life

6810
Ms N
Kesiah Dow dec d Declaration
N. J.
Act. 4 July 36 on roll. war. from 77.
Mr Gordon (August 17. 1846)

This Deposition further saith that the following are the children and heirs now living of Henry and Hezekiah Dorr to wit Maria, John (the deponent), Homer, Hezekiah, Rachel, Sarah, Phebe, Catharine and Haudenburgh and further this deponent saith not. Sworn to and subscribed the day and year above written in open court
W. B. Gaston
John H Dorr
Somerset common Pleas special term of August 1846.
State of New Jersey }
Somerset County p William Kennedy clerk of the court of common Pleas in for said county do hereby certify that the facts stated in the above declaration were proven to the satisfaction of the court in open court this 19 th day of August 1846.
Witness my hand & seal of office this day & year aforesaid Wm Kennedy Clk

This certifies that I have this day examined the Records of Baptisms of the Reformed Dutch Church at Raritan (Somerville) etc. at the request of Daniel H. Voorhies and that I find the following entrances at the dates written below and in the exact form in which they are here transcribed.
   Children  Fathers  Mothers      Sarah 10 Oct.  Hendrick Donwardy  Kezia Johnson 1791.    Phoebe Brokaw  Hendrick Donwardy  Kezia Johnson    Sep 12 1791  Jany 15 1792     Margaret  Hendrick Donwardy  Kezia Johnson June 6 1792    Catharine Voorhies  Henry Donwardy  Kezia Johnson Jany 8 1797     In witness whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name on the 17 day of December 1846
Abraham Mepler S.S.C.
Pastor of the Ref. D.C. at Raritan

Extract from the Records of the Reformed Dutch Church of Westminster New Jersey.
Mrs Keziah Dow (widow of Henry) died Dec 19. 1846. was buried in the Church Yard of R. D. C of Westminster, being in the 84 th year of her age.
I certify that the above record is found written in the Book of Records of the Reformed Dutch Church of Westminster of which I am now Pastor
Dec 26. 1846.
George Schenck.

Surrogates Paper, Re: at Dow case, Somerset Co. N. J.
(1852 ap. 5)
J. V. Gouly Present

State of New Jersey } ss. Somerset County } Surrogates Court
On this 5 th day of April 1852, Satisfactory proof was made to said Court having probate jurisdiction within and for the County and state aforesaid, that Kesia Dow departed this life in said County of Somerset on or about the 19 th December 1840 — That the said Kesia Dow was the Widow of Henry Dow deceased late of the County and state aforesaid, and to whom she was married in or about the year (1773) — Seventeen Hundred and Seventy Three — That the following are the only surviving of the said Kesia Dow, Four John H. Dow, Catharine D. Dow, Phoebe Todd Kesia Dow, Rachel Dow, Sarah Voorhees, & Mariah Van Nest, — That her son Abner Dow departed this life since the death of his Mother, leaving no Widow, nor children having never been married.
Said Court further certify, that Letters of Administration have been granted to Daniel H. Voorhees on the estate of Kesia Dow aforesaid, and that said Letters have not been revoked, but are still in full force and virtue.
In testimony whereof I hereunto subscribe my name and have caused the seal of said Probate Court to be affixed this 5 th August 1852, at Somerville. C. Morson, Surrogate

Roy WIDOW, &c.
aw
File No. _____
411
Keziah Dow died widow Henry Dow Priv. Riv. War.
Act: _____
July 4, 1836.
Index:—Vol. _____
4
, Page _____
187
[Arrangement of 1870.]
✓

6810

1810 Resiah Dow dec.
H. Gabrielle Oct 8/46 Same " 27/46 Same Jny 18/47 Same Feby 11/47 Hon W. A. Newell Jny 11/49 D Bloomer July 15/52
act L July 1836

✓
6810
Meriah Dow dec?
M. S.
Ed. & Abk. Babineau
Oct. 8th '46
same Oct 27 1846
same Jan'y 18th '47
same Feb'y 11/47
How to a minute pay H. 49
Oct 4th July 1836

In the matter of Reziah Doro
See Atty. Genl's Opinion of November 19. 1856

New Jersey Roll,
Rebecca Dow, d who was the mother of Henry, who was a private New Jersey Line —
She d July 4, 1836,
2 year private of Infantry, $80 per Ann
She d March 4, 1831,
She d Dec 19, 1840, when she d —
Payable to Saml. H. Voorhees, the son of John H. Dow, Catha- rine D. Dow, Phoebe Todd, Rebecca Dow, Rachel Dow, Sa- rah Voorhees, & Maria Van Nest as children &
To J. J. Coombs. Present.

No land has been granted, but his name is - returned in Col. Cummings Regt. - a, having en- - listed for and having served to close of War - see final settlement - Vol. 1 - p. 97.
JR

Rev. Mr. H. C. Allen
Oct 12 '46
Dr.
Keziah Dow N.J.
Hon J. B. Edwards Washington City
J. B.
1846 Oct 12
From J. B. Edwards
No. 4

Hon J. L. Edwards
New Brunswick Oct 10 th 1846
Sir
"Mourn of the St ts in relation to the case of Georgia Dole " is rec d . The individual who is amused that claim has strangely overlook- -ed the evidence. I think he requires more evidence in relation to the death of the applicant. That is already proven by the testimony of a respectable Witness. Further he says "Direct and respectable testimony will be required to identify her husband with the Henry Dole of Spencer Reg t ". The evidence presented in relation to that point is as follows First the declaration setting forth the fact under oath that the Father of the declarant was a soldier in Spencer Reg t and served during the War in like manner the place where he enlisted. These facts are sustained by the State record in every particular . Mrs. M c Neil an old lady of high respectability testifies positively to the fact that the Henry Dole on a list of whom service application is made was in the service during the War. In addition to the above the Secy of St ts certifies that there was but one Henry Dole of the N th Glou

In my further states that "there is no evidence (as far as it is deciphered) furnished by the German Bible of the date of the marriage" If as one at Washington City can translate the Dutch language into english I will have it done for the Dept without charge. The first record in the book is that of the marriage of son with his wife & I think it is in the fol words "I have married in March 1773" In addition to that record the Bible contains the records of the births of the children which establishes the fact beyond controvery that the marriage occurred about about the time specified, and by such evidence as the Dept has adopted. Unless the Dept possess record evidence which contradicts the evidence presented I consider this case as conclusively established as any case I ever had the honor to present to the Dept. I therefore respectfully request a reexamination of the case.
Very Resp.
Yours Affec.
J. Anna C. Schuchert
PS If the Bible is such as to be translated, it must be franked

Having refer- ence to the case of Nigrah Soro -
APPEAL
IN THE CASE OF
BENJAMIN WHEELER
TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
WASHINGTON—C. Alexander, Printer, F, near 17th St.

WASHINGTON, December 1854.
SIR:
I beg leave to call your attention to the case of Benjamin Wheeler, (Act 7th June, 1832, Mass, suspended,) which you have expressed a willingness to review.
The service of Wheeler, his survival of the Act of 1832, his death before the recognition of the claim which he had preferred under that act, the survivorship of his children, and their death before the allowance of said claim, are admitted; leaving for your determination simply the question whether, under these circumstances, any right had vested in him, or whether upon the death of himself and his children it lapsed to the government.
The Commissioner of Pensions in his report contended for the latter position, assuming that the pension is granted for the maintenance and support of the soldier alone. I willingly concede the ability and general correctness of that officer, amidst whose ceaseless and harassing occupations it is rather to be admired that he should be so seldom, than that he should be sometimes, mistaken, in which latter category I hope to show he now stands.
In the first place, this assumption, if it could prove any thing, would prove too much, for it would be as potent to exclude children as grand children or legal representatives; and no one denies that children are entitled.
There is indeed, one act of the character which the Commissioner would impose on this, with which I shall proceed to compare it.
The Act of 18th March, 1818, provides that of officers and soldiers who served as therein prescribed "any one who is, or hereafter, by reason of his reduced circumstances shall be, in need of assistance from his country for support," &c., shall receive a pension to commence on the day of his making his declaration. Congress, apprehending that others than those who really needed assistance , might claim under this act, passed a supplemental one on the 1st May, 1820, requiring the applicant to file a sworn schedule of his property that the Department might judge whether he was an object of charity; and on the 1st March, 1823, further provided that his pension should commence only from the time of the completion of his proof.
If the act of 1832 had been intended simply to provide for the maintenance and support of the officer or soldier, is it credible that with this series of well guarded statutes before that body, no attempt should be made to restrict its bounty to those who needed it, but that language importing the most free, absolute and unconditional gift, should be employed? The Office has no right to inquire and never does inquire, whether the applicant or his children be worth a dime or a plum. And how can it be contended that the law intends

to provide for the personal support of the party alone, when it permits no inquisition into his probable need of such assistance?
To sustain my own opinion, permit me to cite an analogous case. The law of 4th March, 1814, providing for the widows and minor children of officers, &c., of the Navy, says, that under specified circumstances they shall be entitled to receive a certain pension. The Pension Office, as in this case, contended that this was a personal gratuity, founded on the supposed necessity of the parties, and no vested right. Attorney General Wirt declares that this is a mere assumption. "The right of pension does not at all depend on this necessity. It is given to the widows and children of officers and seamen, of rich and poor, without regard to their circumstances." (Opinion of Attorney General 9th June, 1825.) The language of the Act of 1832 is equally as free from any restrictive words, and must receive the same interpretation.
In my judgment, however, this point made by the Commissioner, even if it were well taken, would not affect the question, for even under the act of 1818, confessedly an eleemosynary one, after the claimant has filed his declaration and completed his proof, the law executes the contract, and the pension is indefeasibly vested in him, and consequently if never received by himself may be demanded by his representatives. But waiving this view of the subject, which is unimportant to my purpose, I shall now inquire how this question, under this particular act, stands, when examined by the general principles of law, by its analogies with other acts in pari materia , and by the settled usages of the Department.
Now every promise must either be conditional or absolute; and if of the former character, so soon as the condition is complied with it is annihilated, and the promise becomes absolute.
Pensions to army and navy invalids, and those under the Act of 1818, are promised conditionally, that is, upon the party making proof that he is entitled, until which is done no right vests in him, and consequently none can be transmitted by him. The moment this is done, however, the condition is satisfied and the right vests.
But the Act of 1832 requires nothing to be done by the officer or soldier, whom it contemplates, in order to perfect his title to its provisions. Its language is, "That such of the surviving officers, non-commissioned officers, &c., who shall have served in the continental line or state troops, volunteers or militia, &c., be authorized to receive the amount of his full pay in said line, according to his rank; such pay to commence from the 4th day of March, 1831, and shall continue during his natural life." Here a particular class of persons is described, to wit: officers, &c., who shall have served a specified term during the Revolutionary War, and who were living on the 7th day of June, 1832, and to each of them is unconditionally and absolutely given a pension to commence before the date of the law. No

act is to be done by the donee; the pension is not even contingent on his completing or offering testimony; no time is fixed within which, nor person designated by whom, the claim shall be preferred.
It is true, indeed, that the claim cannot be paid until the proof is exhibited; but this is requisite, not to establish the right, but to ascertain the person in whom the right is vested. If, (as an illustration,) my house is in flames and I offer to such of the crowd as will aid in recovering a valuable article of furniture a reward of ten dollars, per man, a dozen leap forth and succeed in their efforts, each one has a vested right to that sum, though I may require him to prove that he rendered the service before I pay him the money. Yet after judgment given he has no more absolute right than he had before.
On this point the Attorney General, in his opinion of 9 June, 1825, already cited, says: "Nor is there any condition annexed to the promise that the money shall be paid, if applied for in a given time, or in a given state of things . It is bottomed only on the single condition that the husband and father shall die in the service of his country; on the happening of which the public engagement becomes a debt , which is as much property , and the property of the widow and children as any bonds which the deceased may have left them by his will."
This is said of the Act of 4 March, 1814, indeed, but a comparison of the language of that act with the language employed in that of June, 1832, will show that in meaning and spirit they are identical. That of 1814 says: "the widow and children shall be entitled to receive half the monthly pay to which the deceased was entitled." That of 1832 says: "that the officer, &c., be authorized to receive "—and I apprehend that it will hardly be contended that the one phrase is more potent than the other.
But it may be objected that the pensions promised to officers, &c., of the army and navy, and their widows and children, are in consideration of future service, and are therefore binding contracts; while those promised by the Act of 1832 are founded on past service, and are therefore mere gratuities. To this I reply that the very act on which Mr. Wirt was commenting included all widows, not only of those who shall die after its passage, but of those who shall have died before it and since the 18th June, 1812. And it is a well settled principle of law that a promise to pay predicated upon service previously rendered to the promiser, at his request, is as binding as if made for a future service.
Resorting next to the maxim that statutes in pari materia shall be construed alike, let us see how other classes of pensions have been treated:
The granting words used in all the acts giving pensions to invalids of the army are, "that he shall be placed on the list of invalids," and the pension is to commence from the completion of the proof. I find

but one decision under this head respecting the character of the right, which is there held to be a vested one, since it is based on the consideration of future service, and therefore amounts to a contract. ( Triplet's Digest , p. 102.) But I think I have already shown that there can be no distinction between contracts based upon past and those upon future service, so that if this decision be correct, it is as available for one class as for the other.
It is provided that invalids of the navy shall be entitled to receive . On the 3d March, 1837, Congress enacted that such invalids should receive pensions from the time of their being disabled. On this the Attorney General declares: "So soon as this law passed, the pensioner became entitled, in my judgment, to his arrearages of pension as fully as he was to the pension itself; and although he died without having received what was due him, the money does not belong to the navy pension fund, but must be paid over to his legal representatives." (Opinion of Attorney General, 23d March, 1839.) This case is precisely parallel with one under the Act of 1832, both laws being founded upon considerations already rendered, and both specifying the commencement of the pension.
In the acts granting pensions to the widows of naval officers and seamen, (many of which are retroactive,) the granting words are, "shall be entitled to receive." In commenting on one of these the Attorney General says, "Here is a certain right which the law says shall accrue to the widow on the happening of a certain event—that of her husband having died by reason of a wound received in the line of his duty on board of a private armed ship. The law does not require either that an application should be made by her, or that any thing else should be done in order to consummate her right. It is consummated by the mere fact of the death of her husband under the circumstances mentioned. It is a vested right to so much money per annum, &c."—(Opinion of Attorney General, 9th June, 1825.) Here substitute six months' service during the Revolution, and a survival till 7th June, 1832, for "the death of the husband," and you have an exact description of the act of 1832. Many subsequent decisions, and the uniform practice at the Pension Office, have settled beyond dispute the vested character of these rights.
Under the act of 4th July, 1836, (founded upon that of 1832,) the Attorney General on the 15th April, 1837, decided that the right was a vested one, and the arrears went to the personal representative. The Secretary of War in the case of — Knowlton, made the same decision: "otherwise, where the money is undrawn, and the certificate even not issued at her death, the money would lapse into the treasury. There being no provision made by law for the disposition of arrears of pension, the only authority for paying them over at all, even to children, arises from the fact that the claim is a vested right." ( Triplet's Digest , p. 34.) This decision was made 25th January, 1840.

If then, the language of the act we are considering were doubtful, would not this uniform construction of similar acts through a period of twenty-nine years, at least, if not from the passage of the first of them, be sufficient to settle the question? But there is a stronger point yet.
On the 15th May, 1828, Congress passed "An act for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the army of the Revolution." The 1st section is as follows: "That each of the surviving officers of the army of the Revolution, in the continental line, who was entitled to half pay by the resolve of October 21, 1780, be authorized to receive the amount of his full pay in said line, according to his rank in the line, to begin on the 3d March, 1826, and to continue during his natural life. The 3d section makes the same provision for non-commissioned officers, &c. In June, 1828, the Secretary of the Treasury, to whom the execution of the act was committed, issued his instructions, in which he declares that where one entitled died without having received his pension, the right went first to the widow, next to the children, and in default both of widow and children, to the legal representatives. And such has continued to be the rule under that act to the present day.
The Act of 7th June, 1832, is called, "An Act supplementary to the Act for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary army," and except in the description of the persons contemplated, is in the very same words. Here, then, are two statutes in which the same language is employed, one of them declared by the legislature to be a mere supplement to the other, yet receiving diametrically opposite constructions! When the latter was passed this construction had been for four years established, and it is not only the legal presumption but a moral certainty that Congress knew well of this interpretation. Must they not have known then that the same meaning would be attached to the supplement which had already been affixed to the original? And if they had desired or intended a different effect would the same words have been employed? In fact, no other construction would have accorded with the intentions of the legislature, if we may credit the opinion of the Attorney General, delivered on the 3d February, 1834, according to which pensions under the Act of 1828 and of 1832 stand on a much higher platform than that occupied by pensions to invalids of the army and navy, and to their widows, which I have shown to confer vested rights. "We are now," he says, "prepared to look into the Act of June 7, 1832; and the first observation which occurs, is, that this act, so far from being supplementary to the pension laws, or to any of them, is expressly declared by its title, to be supplementary to the Act of 15 May, 1828, 'for the relief of certain officers and soldiers of the army of the Revolution.' The first section also refers to that law, and the whole act is evidently a mere extension of the principle established by the Act of 1828."

"Now the Act of May 15, 1828, has no connexion whatever with the general system of pension laws. It was the commencement of another and entirely different system."
Here he quotes the 1st section, and remarks:—
"On the face of this section we perceive that, instead of extending the bounty of the nation to a new class of invalids, or indigent persons, in the form of a pension, the law merely makes provision for the satisfaction of an equitable claim on the justice of the government, and carefully avoids any such expression as might connect it with the system of pensions then in force." The same distinction is recognized in the 2d and 5th sections, and still more emphatically in the 3d, which he quotes, and then continues: "Here, again, it is apparent that the payments directed by this section are granted, not as pensions gratuitously conferred, but for the purpose of providing an equitable equivalent for the reward promised in the resolve to which the section refers; and by referring to the debates, and other proceedings which accompanied the passage of the law, it will be seen that its enactment was advocated principally, if not exclusively, on this ground."
Next he cites the 4th section, on which he remarks: "In this section, and indeed throughout the whole act, we have the clearest indications that the pay then provided for was considered as entirely different from the pensions before granted."
"On recurring to the law of 1832, the next observation to be made is, that it is truly supplementary to that of 1828; it proceeds on the same principle, is a part of the same system, and merely extends the policy of that law to a new and larger class of persons, who are to be paid in the same manner as those in the former law."
"This will be rendered manifest by a comparison of its provisions with those of the Act of 1828, from which some of them are copied in terms, and others with such variations only as were rendered necessary by the wide scope of the new act. The officers and soldiers embraced within its provisions, like those provided for in the Act of 1828, are treated as having a claim on the justice of the nation, and not merely as objects of its bounty; the monies directed to be paid to them are denominated pay , and not pensions ; and those moneys are to be paid to all who have performed the requisite service, whether wounded or otherwise disabled or not, and without regard to their pecuniary circumstances." He then quotes the 3d section of the Act of 1832, to show that pay is the term employed in describing the amounts that may accrue to the parties contemplated by it.
I trust I have shown that according to the naked principles of law, to the construction of all other pension acts, to the nature of this particular act, and to the unvarying opinions of those successively holding the highest law office in the government, the right accruing under the 7th June, 1832, is a vested one, and it now remains for me to trace the usages of the Department in connection with this question.

Ever since the passage of the Act of 1828, the rights granted by it have been held to be vested, without any check in this uniform flow of decisions. From the passage of the Act of 1832, the rights arising under it, and under the various widows' acts founded upon it, were held to be vested, until the 21 April, 1845, when they were decided not to extend beyond children; in 1849 this question was reviewed by Mr. Ewing, who re-established the old doctrine, which prevailed till 17 October, 1851, since which they have again been restricted to children. An examination, therefore, of the grounds on which the first practice was unsettled, becomes necessary.
The 2d section of the Act of 2 March, 1829, provides "that whenever any revolutionary pensioner shall die, the Secretary of War shall cause to be paid the arrears of pension due to the said pensioner at the time of his death," and that all such arrears should be paid to the widow; if no widow, to the children or their guardian; if no child, to the legal representatives of the deceased.
The Act of 19 June, 1840, provides that when any pensioner shall die, leaving children, but no widow, the amount of pension due to such pensioner at the time of his death shall be paid to the executor or administrator on the estate of such pensioner , for the sole and exclusive benefit of the children, to be by him distributed among them in equal shares, and the same shall not be considered as a part of the assets of said estate, nor liable to be applied to the payment of the debts of said estate, in any case whatever.
Sec. 3. That in case of the death of any pensioner , whether male or female, leaving children, the amount of pension may be paid to any one or each of them, as they may prefer, without the intervention of an administrator."
It is assumed that the right of legal representatives, arose under the Act of 1829, and that this was repealed by the Act of 1840.
In the first place I deny that the latter Act repeals the former. The Attorney General, in his opinion of 17 November, 1828, asserts, what indeed is a well known principle of law, that "a virtual or implicative repeal is only permitted where there is some repugnance between the last Act and the former." Here there is none. The former Act prescribed that the right to a pension should descend, first to the widow, then to the children, and lastly to the legal representatives. The latter, in aid of the other, further provides that where the pensioner dies, leaving children , the money shall be paid to an executor or administrator for their benefit, unless they otherwise elect, but leaving the rights of the widow and, where there was neither widow nor child, of the legal representative unmentioned and untouched. The mischief was, that before, if the children were scattered through the several States of the Union or to parts unknown, no one was authorized to apply for or receive their shares; an application must be made by each, frequently at greater expense than the amount

involved ; the remedy was, to permit the sum to be drawn on the sole application of the administrator. But where there was neither widow nor child, the administrators' right was already ascertained, and no farther provision was needed. Is a right acknowledged for years and secured by an express Act thus to be divested by a forced construction of another Act not inconsistent with it? But I have shown that the right of the administrator did not depend on the Act of 1829 at all, it having been recognized in the very first regulations made under the Act of 1828, (in June, 1828,) and never disputed till 1845. An absolute repeal of the Act of 1829, then, would simply have remitted the parties to the condition they stood in before, when the legal representative was acknowledged to be entitled. The Act of 1840 makes no provision for paying to the widow at all, yet her rights are not regarded as repealed by it. It merely declares what shall be done where the party died, leaving no widow, because the rights of the widow and of legal representatives were before sufficiently ascertained. But if this repeals the Act of 1829, and if the rights of the widow and the legal representatives depended on that Act, then she has no right any more than they, the words "leaving no widow," hardly amounting to a saving clause.
The cotemporaneous construction of this Act of 1840 sustains my position as to the intention of Congress, as securely as the principles of law sustain my construction. If it had been intended to affect the rights of any class of persons before entitled, is it credible that neither the Secretary of War nor the Commissioner of Pensions, one or both of whom is usually consulted upon any changes proposed in such matters, should have been apprised of the fact? Yet we find that legal representatives claimed and received as before until 1845, when the motives of the Act were forgotten and a hasty decision overturned rights continually recognized for 17 years.
Again : ignoring the fact that these claims upon common law principles alone were decided to be vested rights, but admitting them to be born of the Act of 1829, and that Act to be repealed by the Act of 1840, the pensioner dies, leaving a child ; the law declares that the amount due the pensioner at his death shall be paid to the child or an administrator for his benefit ; is this right vested or contingent? If contingent, upon what? If vested, where is the authority upon the childs' death to declare it forfeited to the government? It must be a strange sort of right, indeed, which attends upon the ancestor during his life, and, by express words of the law, if not enjoyed by him is devolved upon his children, and yet never really vests in them at all. Under the law of 1840, taken alone, if the pensioner died leaving neither widow nor child, it might be contended that there being no statute here in existence the pension lapsed ; but if either widow or child survived him for an hour, there being no further limitation, the right vested absolutely in such survivor.

But in truth neither the act of 1829 nor that of 1840, applies to the case of Benjamin Wheeler at all. Those acts refer to pensioners alone, and Wheeler was never a pensioner, but only an applicant for a pension. If any man will assert that by the term pensioner Congress meant to designate, not only a pensioner but also somebody who was not a pensioner , I cannot argue with him. I know that the common and the technical import of that word is "one in the receipt of a pension," and that the first rule of construction is, to give to words such a meaning as they generally bear, and to terms of art the meaning affixed to them by those versed in that art. Nor can any instance be found in which Congress has used this term to describe an applicant for a pension. The acts of 1828 and 1832 say, "That each of the surviving officers, &c." The 2d section of the act of 4th July, 1836, says, "That if any officer, &c., have died since the 4th March, 1831, and before [7th June, 1832] the amount of pension which would have accrued, &c."
The resolution of 2d March, 1833, says, that in the execution of the act of 7th June, 1832, "whenever it shall be made to appear that any applicant for a pension under that act, &c." The acts of 3d March, 1837, and 23d August, 1842, and the resolutions of 7th July, 1838, and 16th August, 1842, in relieving widows from certain disabilities, thus to enable them to become pensioners, say that the benefits of the act named "shall not be withheld from such widow , &c." I might multiply instances in which Congress has distinguished between those entitled to pensions and pensioners, but I presume it is needless.
And this distinction was kept in view until the Secretary of War in 1845 seems to have overlooked it in the decision before adverted to. In the case of —— Knowlton, before cited, the Secretary had it in mind, for he declares that there is no law regulating the descent of arrears of pension to which the party was not admitted in his or her life, which he could not have said if he had regarded the law of 1829 as applying to such a case. The Secretary of the Interior, on the 5th March, 1850, says, "The act of June 19, 1840, applies to pensioners alone, that is, to those who had actually been in the receipt of a pension; and of pensioners , to those only who should die after its passage. If the party has died before the date of that act, or if he had never received a pension, the arrears (if there be no law directing their distribution,) must go to his or her representatives."—(Triplett's Digest, p. 7.)
Under this decision the right of the administrator, in default of widow or child, was restored and remained so until again overruled by the succeeding Secretary, under a manifest misapprehension of the facts, as I shall show.
On the 17th March, 1852, Secretary Stuart says to the Commissioner of Pensions, "in relation to the payment of pensions to per-

sonal representatives, I entirely concur with you in the views expressed in your report." The "views expressed in that report" were these: 1. "That the act of 2d March, 1829, was rendered necessary by the omission in the acts of 1818 and 1828 to provide for the distribution of arrears." I have shown that there was no such omission in the act of 1828, the act of 1829 only adopting for fractions of a pension the rule prescribed under the act of 1828 for arrears of pension. 2. "The Act of June, 1832, which introduces a totally new system of pensions, prescribes also a new rule upon the subject. Arrears under it are made payable to the widow, and if there be no widow, to the children. Had this act merely provided for the payment of a debt already existing, Congress would have no power to interfere with the state laws prescribing the distribution of personal assets; but as a pension is a mere creation of that body, it undoubtedly had the power to affix to it any descendible quality it judged proper, and no authority can be found for admitting to its benefits any class of persons not expressly named. The naming of one set of heirs is an exclusion of all not named. Under this act, therefore, an administrator could never have been recognized by this office as a claimant until the Act of June 19, 1840, permitted it to be paid to him "for the sole use and benefit of the children, to be distributed among them in equal shares, and never to be regarded as assets." If there be no children, the purpose for which the administrator is allowed to claim the arrears can never be answered; and the reason ceasing, the law ceases also. Were any other construction adopted, it would involve the absurdity of constituting the administrator the heir of his intestates—for there is no one in existence to whom the law requires the money to be paid by him, and it never can be employed as assets in liquidating the debts of the deceased." Now every sentence in this paragraph contains an error.
The Act of 1832 is a mere extension of the Act of 1828. It contains not a word about arrears of pension, but only a direction for the distribution of the fractions of a pension falling due between the last semi-annual payment and the pensioner's death. The administrator was always recognized at the Pension Office as a proper claimant, where there was neither widow nor child, before the Act of 19 June, 1840, and after it, up to April, 1845. The law of 1840 (even if it were here applicable) does not say that the amount due the deceased should never be assets in the hands of the administrator, but that it shall not be assets in the hands of the administrator of the deceased soldier, when he has left children living . If he has left no children, it is clearly assets in his hands. If he left a child living who died without receiving the amount, then the amount is due to the administrator, not of the soldier, but of the child, in whom the right had vested, and here the law of 1840 gives it no protection from debts. 3. "This view of the subject is in accordance with that expressed by

Attorney General Mason, in the case of Paulina Le Grand, (Opinion of Attorney General, 14 July, 1846); and though there are some precedents of an opposite character, the opinion of Mr. Mason is sustained by Messrs. Poinsett and Woodbury, and by others of acknowledged ability on the pension laws. See also the opinion of Secretary Marcy in the case of Elizabeth Cragie. I am informed that this opinion was first dissented from, but afterwards concurred in by Secretary Ewing."
Paulina Le Grand was a pensioner at the time of her death, and therefore whether this decision of Attorney General Mason was right or wrong in that instance does not affect this case. Mr. Woodbury, as Secretary of the Treasury, suggested that "he had always supposed that the granting a pension was a personal matter, and when the claimant died the claim did not descend to his heirs or representatives." He was assured by the Commissioner of Pensions that the practice had been opposed to his supposition, and Mr. Poinsett said: "I find, on examining into the subject, that both the invariable practice of this Department under my predecessors, and the united opinions of Mr. Attorney General Wirt and Mr. Attorney General Butler, warrant the construction put upon the law by the Commissioner of Pensions."—(Mayo and Moulton, p. 491.) Secretary Marcy did decide as the Commissioner asserted, though in the case of Ann Smith, and in a case on the 24th May, 1845, (after his opinion in the Cragie case of 21st April, 1845,) he decided directly to the contrary. (Triplet's Digest, p. 7.) And Secretary Ewing, as I have quoted him above, so far from concurring in Mr. Heath's opinion, incontrovertibly established the opposite, and acted upon it while he remained in office.
Against, then, the plainest rules of legal construction, the repeated decisions of the highest authorities, and the uninterrupted practice of 17 years, reinstated, after an occasional interruption during 4 years, upon close investigation, we have the decision of one Secretary, not adhered to by himself, and then of another Secretary "concuring in views," every one of which I have shown to be directly contrary to the facts of the case. Which shall prevail?
I have the honor to be,
Your humble servant,
F. F. C. TRIPLETT.
Hon. ROBERT McLELLAND, Secretary of the Interior.

Brief in the case of Hyde Low, Penda Henry- Somerset — County and State of New Jersey.
act July 4, 1836,
Claim, ("original," or "for increase.")
Proof exhibited, (if original.)
Is it documentary, traditional, or supported by rolls? If either, state the substance.
Recd evidence of law year, same in the time of New Jersey — and Recd evidence of nonage 1773. He died Nov. 27, 1828. He died Dec 19, 1840. He administered here the appointed and the other requests & the office here the completed with (If for increase.)
Has additional evidence been filed since the admission of the claim? If so, what?
Name and residence of Agent
J. J. Coombs, Present.
Examining Clerk.
Oscar S. Saly

Washington, April 12 th 1852
Sir:
I herewith enclose of the Application of Danl. H. Voorhies, Administrator of Elizabeth Dow, widow of Henry Dow die d for Arrears of Pension under the Act of 4 th July 1836, together with evidence of the death of said widow, and the names of the surviving children.
Having examined the evidence on file, the claim appears to me most fully and clearly established. In fact I cannot conceive what plausible objection to its allowance can possibly be raised.
I am, very respectfully Your obt servt J. J. Coombs
H. E. Hutto Esq Court of Pensions.

Hezekiah Dow -
Rejoinder to the Report of the Actg. Comm n . of Pensions.
Claim's Atty in answer to objections
1852. Augt 24
J. J. Coombs Atty for Claim t .

Washington, Aug 24 th 1882.
Sir:
Having seen the report of the Acting Commissioner of Pensions, upon my appeal in the case of Naziah Dow, I beg leave to present a brief rejoinder.
That report still fails to point out any other objection to the claim, than the one adopted founded on the rule established by you in the case of Thomas Murray, on the 11 th of March last. Of course, therefore, there is no other objection for me to answer.
I insist, however, that the rule adopted prescribed by you as aforesaid, is not applicable to this case for the following reasons:
1 st There has never been any " final adjudication " of this claim. When a claim presented to the Pension Office comes up to be acted upon, it is either admitted , rejected , or suspended . There are three distinct registers kept, of cases belonging to these respective classes. The rejected claims are annually reported to Congress, with a brief statement

of the reasons for their rejection. The suspended claims are not so reported. When the claim is admitted , there is a "final adjudication" in its favor. When a claim is rejected there is a "final adjudication" against it. In both cases, the rule of 11 th March last applies. But surely, there can be no "final adjudication" in a case that has neither been admitted or rejected . It would be a gross perversion of language, in my view, to say that a claim which has been expressly suspended for future action , has been "finally adjudicated." The two terms, " suspension " and " final adjudication ", convey, to my mind, directly opposite meanings .
The claim of Merial Dow has never been either admitted or rejected . It is upon the suspended list only.
But this is not all. The claim has never been five years suspended , without action. Even if the terms " suspension " and " final adjudication " could be construed to mean the same thing, still the rule prescribed by you on the 11 th of March last would not apply.
The Pension Office treats the let ter .

ter to J. C. Gabriskie Esq. of 11 th Feb. 1847, as the "last adjudication" in the case. But two years afterwards, the Hon. W m A. Newell wrote a letter to the Pension Office, asking a reexamination of the case, which letter was answered by the Pension Office. Was not this letter to the Hon. Mr. Newell, as much an "adjudication" of the claim, as the former one to Mr. Gabriskie? Again, in 1851, a Power of Atty. was filed, authorizing W. L. Allison to prosecute the claim. So that in fact the claimants have never acquired in law a suspension of the claim, for more than two years at a time.
These facts were mentioned in my letter of appeal, which was referred to the Pension Office for a report thereon. Yet no notice is taken of them in that report. It appears to me as if the Pension Office sought to keep the material facts in the case out of view, by studiously avoiding to notice them. This must be my excuse for calling your attention to these facts a second time.
I have the honor to be
Very respectfully Hon. Alex. H. Stuart Secy. of the Interior
Your obedt servt J. L. Bloomer

Washington, June 6 th 1856.
Having just been advised by the Chief Clerk of the Department of the Interior, that the case of Hester Daw, deceased, (in which I am Attorney) has been referred to you, for your opinion upon the question, whether Arrears of pension under the Act of July 4 th 1836, accruing to a widow in her life-time, but not allowed to her, can be recovered for the use of her children, after her decease, I beg leave to submit for your consideration a few suggestions, touching said question.
I do not presume to think that any thing I could say on the subject would aid you in coming to a correct determination of the question submitted, otherwise than by bringing to your notice  calling to your notice some instances of contemporaneous construction, by Congress and the Executive Departments, which you may deem worthy of consideration.
I believe it never has been the practice to pay arrears of invalid pensions, in cases where the invalid was not

placed on the pension roll in his life-time, to the widow, children, or personal representatives. Nor has it ever been the practice to pay such arrears to the widow, children, or personal representatives, of a man who might have been placed on the pension roll under the Act of 18 th March 1818, but never was.
Under the Act of 15 th May, 1828, and all subsequent acts granting Revolutionary pensions, however, a different practice has prevailed, for twenty eight years. Arrears of pensions under said acts have been uniformly allowed to widows, children, or personal representatives, although never allowed to, or even claimed by, the parties primarily entitled, in their life-times, during all the time aforesaid. And this practice has repeatedly received the express sanction of the Heads of Executive Departments and Attorneys General, as well as the implied sanction of Congress, from time to time, during the whole of said period.
Neither the Act of 15 th May 1828, nor any of the subsequent acts granting pensions to Revolutionary soldiers, or their widows, contains any express provision, giving arrears

of pension, after the decease of the party primarily entitled, to widow, children, or personal representatives; except such arrears as might accrue to a pensioner , between the last payment and the day of his or her death.
But immediately after the passage of the Act of 15 th May 1828, the Secretary of the Treasury, to whom the Execution of that Act was committed, issued his "Regulations" for carrying that Act into effect, in which he prescribed, that where a man died, entitled to the benefits of said Act, without receiving his pension, the arrears were payable, first to his widow, next, to his children, and in default of both, to his executor or administrator. And this rule has been observed, without interruption or question, to the present day.
Four years afterwards, Congress, with the knowledge that said Act of 1828 had been construed and executed as aforesaid, passed the Supplemental Act of 7 th June 1832, extending similar benefits to another class of officers and soldiers,

Congress must have known that a like construction would be given to like language in the act of 1832. Yet they passed the act of 1832, in almost the same precise words as the act of 1828, so far as related to this question. In the "Regulations" issued by the Secretary of War, for carrying into effect the act of 1832, the same rule was prescribed, as to paying arrears to widows, children, &c. as had been prescribed under the act of 1828; and ten thousand copies of these Regulations were printed for distribution by order of Congress. (see letter of J. S. Edwards in the case of Jesse Gove, Computation of Pension Laws of 1849. page 114)
Four years afterwards, Congress passed the act of 4 th July 1836, granting pensions to widows of certain Revolutionary Officers and soldiers. And although, at that time, the abovementioned construction of the act of 1828 had been in force eight years, and a like construction of like language in the act of 1832 had been in force four years, yet no deviation was made, in this respect, from the language employed in said prior acts. Is it not a fair and legitimate rule of construction

which assumes, that the Legislature, in passing any particular act, intended that the same construction should be given, that had long and uniformly been given to precisely similar provisions in prior acts, in pari materia ? If Congress did not intend that the acts of 1832 and 1836 should receive the same construction, in this respect, that had been given to the act of 1828, it appears to me inconceivable that they should have omitted to insert some clause making their intention manifest.
In 1838, 1848 and 1853, additional acts were passed by Congress, extending similar benefits to those conferred by the act of 1836, to new classes of widows, all of which, like said prior acts heretofore referred to, are entirely silent as to the surviving of any claim to widows children or representatives, where the party primarily entitled, died without receiving the pension; but all of which have received the same construction, in this respect.
In these successive enactments by Congress, without any variation of the provisions under which the now pending question arises, do we not see an
as had been given to said prior acts.

implied sanction, and adoption, of the construction originally given by the Executive Departments?
Besides this, Congress has annually appropriated large sums of money to pay arrears of pensions to widows and children under the various acts aforesaid, where no claim had been made during the lifetime of the party primarily entitled. Not only so, but Congress has, at every session for the last quarter of a century, passed special laws granting arrears of pensions under said acts to widows and children, in cases which had been disallowed at the Pension Office, on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
The construction originally given to said acts of 1828 and 1832, must have been based upon the assumption that said acts conferred vested rights , descendible at common law, or without any special provision to that effect. Some late decisions, however, seem to have based the allowances to widows and children, upon the acts of 2 d March 1829, and of 17 th June 1840, although said acts, in their terms, apply only to cases of arrears due to pensioners , and would seem to have no applica-

cation to the case of a party entitled to a pension, merely, but, who never received one,
So far as Claimants are concerned, however, the result, in most cases, is the same, whether such allowances to widows and children are based upon the construction originally given to said acts of 1828 & 1832, or upon said acts of 1829 & 1840.
I will not trouble you by referring to the numerous decisions of the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and Interior, and the Opinions of your predecessors, the Attorneys General, in favor of allowing arrears of unclaimed pensions, under the acts afore- said, to widows, children, and personal representatives.
There is one very elaborate opinion of Atty. General Butler, however, which was not given with reference to the ques- tion now under consideration, but yet seems to me to have a bearing upon it. I refer to his opinion of Feb. 3 d 1834, which will be found in the Vol 7. Executive Doc- uments, 2 d Sess. 31 st Cong. part 1 st , page 874. In this opinion the Atty. Genl. draws a distinction between invalid pensions

and pensions granted to intelligent soldiers by the act of 1818, on the one hand, and the an- nuities granted by the acts of 1828 and 1832 on the other; and contends that the benefi- ciaries of the last-mentioned acts are not, in any just sense of the term, pensioners : That the annuities granted by said acts are to be considered rather in the light of pay- ments for meritorious services, not com- pensated for before, than as bounties or gratuities . If this distinction be well taken, then there is a good reason for the different construction given to these acts, from that given to the invalid pension acts, and the act of 1818.
I have the honor to be,
Very Respectfully,
Your obt Servt
J. J. Coombs,
Hon. Caleb Cushing Atty Genl.
P.S. Since writing the above my attention has been directed to an opinion given by you on the 4 th of April last, in the case of Do-la-ya-tah, a Creek Indian. In this opinion I perceived you have

drawn a distinction (founded upon long continued construction and practice) between claims arising under the Revolutionary pension acts aforesaid, and invalid pension acts - as to the survivorship of claims for arrears, in cases unadjudicated in the life-time of the party primarily entitled.
J. V. C. Argument of J. V. C. On the See of Typical Dev.

Washington, July 22 d 1852
Sir:
Enclosed I have the honor to present you a letter from the Acting Commissioners of Pensions, disallowing the claim of Maria Dow, deceased, widow of Henry Dow, for Pension under the Act of 4 th July 1836, and beg leave to appeal from said decision. As the letter does not state upon what points the evidence is defective, I cannot, of course, in taking my appeal, make any special points of objection to the decision of the Pension Office, so far as the sufficiency of the testimony is concerned.
I can only say, in general terms, that I consider the case most clearly made out by the evidence.
A man by the name of Henry Dow is shown by Record Evidence to have served in Col Spence's Regt. of the New Jersey line, from the 11 th April 1777 to 1 st Aug. 1780 - and the Secy. of State of New Jersey certifies that there was but
22 July 52. To Mr. [?] My dear [?]

one Henry Dow in the New Jersey Continental line.
The husband of said Keyziah Dow is identified with this service, by two witnesses, to wit:
1 st By Mary Van Nest, who certifies that she knew him in the time of the war, and personally knows of his having served in said war.
2 o By Bergen Van Dorn, a Pensioner, who knew said Henry Dow while he was in the service.
There are no
The marriage is alleged to have taken place in 1773. There are no public records of marriages in New Jersey, but it appears from papers on file in the case that an old family Bible containing the a record of the births of the children was sent to the Pension Office, where it doubtless still remains - but I have not seen it. There is, however in the file a copy of a church record, showing the Baptism of children as early as 1791. —

If said family Bible can be found, it will, I think, show the birth of elder children at a much earlier date.
As to the objection that five years have elapsed since the last adjudication of the claim, and that consequently the case cannot be reconsidered without the production of additional evidence, I have only to say, that as I understand the decision made by you in the case of Thomas Murray, on the 11 th of March last, that decision does not apply to this case, for the following reasons:
1 st Because the parties interested have not " acquiesced " in an adverse decision for five years. In 1849, the Hon W m A. Newell, on behalf of the claimants ad=druped a letter to the Pension Office ask=ing a reexamination of the case, which was answered on the 11 th of Feb. of that year. Again in 1851, a power of Atty to W. S. Allison, to prosecute the claim, was filed in the Pension Office, which appears never to have been answered at all.

2 o Because there never has been any " final adjudication " of this claim. It never was admitted or rejected but was suspended only in 1847.
A mere suspension of a claim in the Pension Office, is similar to the continuance of a cause in a Court of Justice. Either the claim must have been admitted or rejected to place it in a condition at all similar to a case in a Court of Justice in which a final judgment has been rendered.
When the Commissioner of Pensions shall make his report upon my appeal, I shall be glad to have an opportunity of examining the same, and filing a rejoinder if I think necessary.
I have the honor to be Very respectfully Your obedt Servt J. V. Browne
Hon H. H. Stuart Sec'y of the Interior

July 27/52 July 22/52.
Elizabeth Dow, widow of Henry Dow-
J. J. Coombs Appeal from the Pension Office (July 15: 52)
Kirby Fr. Ady Comm.
Reference to the Comm. of Pensions for a report at Muskahen. Dept. Int. (Ag. W. July 22/52.)
J. J. Coombs

Pension Office July 15 th 1852
Sir,
Additional evidence in the case of Hezekiah Dow-decd, of N.Y. for the benefit of the act of 4 th July 1836, was received in the early part of the year 1847, and J. C. Fabriskie Esq the Agent at that time was informed that so far was the evidence then filed from giving additional strength to the case, it had greatly impaired the force of what had been before filed. This letter was written Feby 11 th 1847. Since which time no additional evidence has been received.
More than five years having elapsed since its last adjudication, it cannot now be re-opened without the production of additional testimony which could not have been procured at an earlier date.
J. J. Coombs Esq Present.
I am respectfully Your obed Servt J. H. B. Fabriskie Actg Commr

Am I B Edwards Dr Sir
St Brimsback Aug 24 1846
I herewith send the paper in the case of the Rev. of Nazareth Dow for a pension. I know of no other = suitable form in such case. I have therefore been governed by my own judgment. I believe also the facts mentioned in the case are proven.
Respect
Yours affecly
J B Grahame

Pension Office July 28 th 1852.
Sir.
I have the honor to return herewith Mr Coombes's letter of Appeal from the decision of this Office in the case Keziah Dow. dec d of N.Y. Oct r 4 th July 1836, and to inclose all the papers in the case numbering from 1 to 16 including envelopes.
I have only to remark that in writing the letter to Mr Coombes to which he refers, and which is also inclosed, I did not enter into the merits of the case, but simply applied the rule adopted under your instructions of the 11 th March last.
I have the honor to be very respectfully F. H. L. Ingraham Acting Comm r
Hon d . Alex r H. H. Stuart Secty, Interior.
(Kirby)

Pension Office July 29 th 1882
Sir,
The inclosed papers should have been sent yesterday with the papers in the case of Trefiah Dow widow of Henry upon which Mr. Coombes has taken appeal, but were inadvertently omitted.
I have the honor to be With great Respect J H C Lipton Acting Commr
Hon. Alex d H. A. Stuart Sect y Interior.

County of Somerset State of New Jersey } ss
Personally appeared before the Subscriber Daniel H. Voorhys of full age who on his oath saith that he knew Henry Dole and always understood that he had served in the Continental Line during the whole war. The said Dole at the deponent always understood resided in Sussex County where he resided after the war he removed to Somerset County where he died. The deponent was intimately acquainted with Mrs. Maria Dole widow of the said Henry Dole. She became dread- fully afraid about the time the midwives pension law was passed and upon being requested to permit a pension to be applied for. She would ask whether they wished to send her to the poor house. Her appearance then impressed prevented the application during her life time. This deponent is now acquainted with Maria the elder daughter. She is about 71 years old. Sworn and Subscribed
May 26 th Dec 1846 Before Daniel H. Voorhys
Jacob Voorhys Justice Peace
I certify that the above named deponent is a credible person Jacob Voorhys Justice Peace

County of Somerset } State of N Jersey } G. Personallly appeared before the subscribers began her down a State Restitutionary Person aged 88 years who on her oath saith that he was once acquainted with Henry Dow He served during the war in Spencer Regiment After the war he resided in the neighborhood of this Deposition a part of the time he was a tenant of this Deposition The wife of said Dow was named Elizabeth Dow They had a large number of children the elder of whom was Maria This Deposition knew the said Henry Dow until he died which was took place near Hightstown in this County and State He further saith that there now making application for a pension on the children of Henry and Elizabeth Dow And of further saith not sworn to and subscribed this 26 th Dec r 1846 Before me John D. [unclear] Jacob Lacey Justice Peace
I certify that the above named Depo- -sition is a credible person Jacob Lacey Justice Peace

State of New Jersey } Somerset county p } I William Kennedy Clerk of the court of common Pleas of the county of Somerset do hereby certify that Jacob Losey Esq. before whom the within affidavits of Benjamin Van Dorn & David H. Voorhees were taken was at the time of taking the same a justice of the Peace of said county duly commissioned & sworn & that I believe the signature of the said Justices to said affidavits are genuine & I further certify that the Rev. George Shenck is Pastor of the Reformed Dutch church at Bedminster & that the Rev. Abram Messler D.D. is Pastor of the Reformed Dutch church at Somerville Witness my hand & seal of office Dec 26. 1846 Wm Kennedy Clk
Forkner No. 5 Dec - 1846 Record of Death of Elizabeth Gann Daughter of Mr & Mrs John Gann June 14 1846 Bergen, Ill

No 6
Mr. Claimant att Jan 4 '67

 \begin{array}{r} 97 \\ 73 \\ \hline 24 \end{array} 
New Brunswick Jan'y 4 1847
Dear S r Edward, Sir
Herewith I forward additional - as returning in the case of the Maria of Virginia Dow. I believe I have fully met every re- -quisition of the Siph in that case. The Bible I sent You contains the records of marriages not only that of the baths of the several Children. If You will return that Bible to me I will procure a translation of the Dutch (in which the records are made) by Dr Cannon Professor of Rutgers College with the certificate of the Clk of the County as to the faith. You have always heretofore regarded family records rather of marriages or births in the absence of better testimony as sufficient. If You should send the book You will send it free of postage otherwise I request that the leaves only be sent
Yours Yours affecly Wm D Labaree
sketch P.S. No record mark of death in 1849 when H Dow died

Jan 22, 1847.
Rece
Myrta Dora
At Dousb 36 do to b 6
13 Jan 1847
Wm G Edwards Washington 6th
DC
(Jan 19 1847)
7th Plant Ave
No 7

Am I S Edwards
New Brunswick
June 19 1847
Sir
Yours of the 18 th in reference to the case of Elizabeth Dow is recd. You state that "the additional testimony does not touch the main requisition" - "communicated in your letter of the 8 th to 27 th last"
I will proceed to show that I have fulfilled all the requisitions made by you in your letter of the 8 th last. You say "The date of her death should be established by the Physician Clergyman or notary public"
I send the certificate of the Clergyman Mr Schenck. Meeting your requisition in that particular in very terms . By that certificate the fact of her death at the time specified in the declaration is not only established, but the fact that she was the widow of Henry Dow, and that at the time of her death she was 84 years old, which would make her born past 1760 . If married in 1773 as alleged she would have been 17 years at the time of marriage, which was a suitable and usual age
Second "Dish and respectable testimony to identify her husband with the Henry Dow of Spencer Rest" Bergen Van Dorn a notary of high credibility and in the full possession of his faculties declares "directly" and positively that Henry Dow served in Spencer Rest during the war, and that he knew him until  immediately  until  he  died . Can any thing more positive and "direct" be obtained on that point. Third "A very high grade of proof will be required as to the

date of the marriage" The fact of mar- riage is proven by the record of baptism Mr P o Dow as well as Mr Poohke testified that Maria was the elder child
The Bible I sent you contains the date of her birth as well as that of several of the other children - besides the date of the marriage itself, all in the handwriting of Henry Dow himself
The Dept has constantly been in the practice of receiving family records, properly authen- ticated, in the absence of better proof
Is there any justifiable reason why the uniform practice of the Dept should be departed from in this instance If not why am I not permitted to cause a translation of the record to be made that the Dept may have all doubts re- moved on that point
In conclusion I will remark that I trust that this case will be decided according to the established rules of the Dept
That is all I ask I am perfectly sat- isfied that the decision last com- municated is in direct contravention of those rules
The files of the Dept will establish that fact in cases in which I have been concerned myself
In this case I have on file the testimony of two witnesses to the fact that Henry Dow the husband of Elizabeth was "the Henry Dow of Spencer Resp" In addition to that the Secy of State has certified that there was but one Henry Dow in the N. S. line
Is it reasonable to expect more testi- mony on the point of identity, all

this late day If upon a review of the law the Dept still adheres to the decision last communicated I respectfully ask to be informed which of the two tests - many will be sufficient to establish the identity of Henry Dow to the dis- -injunction of the Dept, and whether a family record of the date of the birth of the eldest child will be satisfactory as to the marriage
Reply
Your obed Serv
Jama C Gahkin

POWER OF ATTORNEY—Revolutionary Pension Claims.
Know all Men by these Presents, That I, John H. Dow of Somerset County
hereby constitute and appoint W. S. Allison my true and lawful Agent and Attorney, to prosecute the Claim of Keziah Dow for any amount of Revolutionary Pension, or Increase of Pension, that may be due; and I hereby author- ize my said Agent to examine all the papers and documents in relation to said claim, on file in the Depart- ments at Washington City, or elsewhere; to file additional evidence or arguments; and to receive the Cer- tificate which may be issued for said Claim, which Certificate I wish made payable to John H. Dow & Mary Dow, Keziah Dow, Rachel Dow, Sarah Foots, Phoebe Dow & Catherine Dow & Hardenburgh Dow to appoint one or more substitutes under him for the purposes herein expressed; and to do all things that I might or could do were I personally present. Hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said Attorney and Agent shall lawfully do in the premises.
WITNESS my hand and Seal this 17 th day of June — A. D., 1851.
John H. Dow
Signed and Sealed in the presence of } Laob Lossy }
STATE OF New Jersey } COUNTY OF Somerset } ss:
On this Seventeenth — day of June — A. D. 1851 before me, the subscriber, a Justice of the Peace in and for the County aforesaid, personally appeared John H. Dow — and acknowledged the foregoing Power, of Attorney to be his act and deed, for the purposes therein mentioned.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand, } the day and year aforesaid. }
Laob Lossy J. Peace.

Resiah Dorr
M. G. Dorr 1836 Pension
Claim of  Resiah Dorr Act of  4 July 1836
Ex of M. Dorr
Sep 30-57
STATE OF New Jersey } ss. COUNTY Somerset }
Be it known, That on this
day of _____ A. D., eighteen hundred and fifty one , before the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace in and for the County and State aforesaid, personally appeared _____ a resident of _____ in said County, and made oath according to law that he is the
who was a Revolutionary Pensioner
at the rate of _____ Dollars per annum; that has been informed that the said Pension ought to be increased; that he is directly interested as a claimant in said Pension, and makes this affidavit to be filed with such additional evidence or arguments as my Agent may use in prosecuting said claim.
Sworn to and subscribed, the day and year aforesaid, before me. } J. Peace. }
I, _____ Justice of the Peace, in and for said County do hereby certify that _____ who executed the foregoing paper is a respectable resident of this County, and is, I believe, directly interested in said claim as therein set forth.
J. Peace.
I, Henry D. Johnson Clerk of the Common Pleas Court in the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Jacob Drey before whom the foregoing papers were executed, was, at the date of the same, a Justice of the Peace in and for said County, duly authorized by law to administer oaths; and the name thereunto subscribed, is his signature.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official Seal, this twenty first day of June A. D. 1851.
Henry D. Johnson Clerk.

Brief of Apprentice Clerk Nov 4. 1852

Keziah Dow, widow of Henry Dow - Application for Pension - On appeal.
This is a claim of children - Record proof of the service of Henry Dow as a private in Kennebec Regt. is adduced from the State Dept of War Jerry, from April 11, 1777 to Aug. 1, 1780 - over three years.
Henry Dow decease Nov. 27, 1819 - The widow died Dec. 18, 1840. Their marriage took place in 1773.
The children apply for the pension which would have been due their mother under the act of July 4, 1836.
Their application was made in August 1846 and additional testimony was filed in 1847, to meet objections made by the Pension Office, which was held not to be satisfactory.
Thus the matter stood until within the past year. A certificate is filed from the Kennebec Court of Somerset Co. at Jerry, setting forth that satisfactory proof was made to said Court [April 5, 1852] that "Keziah Dow departed this life in said county of Somerset on or about the 19th day of December 1840, that the said Keziah Dow was the widow of Henry Dow, decease late of the County and State aforesaid, and to whom she was married in and about the year 1773."
The Pension Office decide that as more than five years have elapsed since the last adjudication of the case, it cannot now be opened without the production of additional testimony, &c.

Power Keshah Dow Case, Roundbrook Somerset Co. N. J.
J. V. Goules

Know all men by these Presents That I Daniel H. Voorhees, administrator of the estate of Hesiaah Dow deceased late of Somerset County and State of New Jersey and Widow of Henry Dow deceased late of the County and State aforesaid and formerly a private soldier in the war of the Revolution do hereby nominate constitute and appoint D. J. M. Berans my true and lawful Attorney for me and in my name to prosecute against the Government of the United States under the acts of Congress passed 4th July 1836, 7th July 1838, or under any other act or acts of the said Congress, the claim due me as the Administrator of Hesiaah Dow, aforesaid in account of the military services of the said Henry Dow her deceased husband in the war of the Revolution, and when an amount or amounts are found due then my said Attorney is hereby fully authorized to demand and receive the Certificate or Warrant in satisfaction for the same, payable at the agency in Washington City or wherever else he may think proper, from the Government of the United States or any Department thereof or proper accounting officer of the same, and to sign seal and deliver any instrument or instruments in writing for order thereto which he may think right and proper, hereby ratifying and confirming all which my

said Attorney may do by virtue of these Presents,
Witness my hand and seal at Somerset County New Jersey
this 5th day of April 1852
Witnes
C. Morton W. Ramsay,
Daniel H. Voorhies
Adm.
State of New Jersey } ss. Somerset County }
On this day of 1852, Before me a Justice of the Peace in and for the County and State aforesaid, personally appeared known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Power of Attorney and acknow- ledged the signing sealing and deliver- ing the same to be his own voluntary act and deed.
State of New Jersey
Somerset County
Personally appeared before the Subscribers one of the Commissioners duly appointed and sworn personally appeared Daniel H. Voorhies Adm. known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Power of Attorney and acknow- ledged the signing sealing and delivering the same to be his own voluntary act and deed. In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand at Somerville this 5th April 1852.
James Taylor
Commissioner of Deeds for New Jersey

State of New Jersey Somerset County. ss.
I Henry D. Johnson County Clerk in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that James Taylor whose genuine signature appears to the foregoing Certificate of acknowledgment is and was at the time of signing the same a Commissioner appointed by the Legislature of this State to take acknowledgments & duly Commissioned and sworn and that all his official acts as such are entitled to full faith and credit
Given under my hand and the seal of the County at the Clerks office in Somerville this Sixth day of April A.D. eighteen hundred and fifty two
Henry D. Johnson Clerk

N o 3
Testimony
21 August 1845
Mary Van Nies Jan 14 Voorburg

State of New Jersey } County of Somerset } ss
Personally Appeared before the Subscriber a Justice of the Peace in and for the County aforesaid Mary Van Nest aged Seventy three who being duly sworn according to law deponeth and saith that during the Revolutionary war she was made acquainted with Henry Dole that he enlisted in the U.S. Service early in the war and served until its termination This Deponent well recollects his leaving home for the Service and his return after the war and further saith not sworn and subscribed this 17 th August 1846 Before
Garret V. Williamson Justice of the Peace
Mary X Van Nest mark
I certify that the above named Deponent is a credible person Garret V. Williamson Justice of the Peace

County of Somerset State of New Jersey
Personally appeared before the Subscriber a Justice of the Peace in and for said County, Daniel H Voorhies of said County of full age who being duly sworn on his oath deposeth and saith that no record exists of the marriage of Henry and Elizabeth Dorland that the accompanying Dutch bible "Amsterdam" Edition "Anno 1707" contains the original record in the hand writing of Henry, Dorland of the births of his children and further this deponent saith not known and subscribed this 17 th day of August 1846 Before
Daniel H Voorhies Garret V. Williamson Justice of the Peace
I certify that the above named Deponent is a credible person
Garret V. Williamson Justice of the Peace
Somerset County
State of New Jersey } I William Kennedy Clerk of the County aforesaid certify that Garret V. Williamson is a Justice of the Peace for said County duly Com- missioned and sworn and that I believe the contents of the affidavits of Daniel H Voorhies and Van Ness to be genuine
Witness my hand and seal of office the twenty first day August 1846
Wm Kennedy Clerk

Copy
Commissioners of Pensions May 26. 1856.
Report upon the claim for arrears of Pension by the heirs of Eliziah Dow , widow of Henry Dow under Act of July 4. 1836.
See decision Sec. Int. Sec. 3 d 1856. Filed with decision.

Copy
Pension Office May 26. 1836.
Sir: In compliance with the instructions in your letter of the 21 st inst., I have made an examination of the claim of arrears of pension by the heirs of Keziah Dow, widow of Henry Dow, under the Act of July 4. 1836.
The records in the case clearly show the services of a Henry Dow in Col n Spencers Regiment, New Jersey Line in the Revolutionary War. Other records in this office, show the services of a Henry Dow in the same Regiment from April 7. 1777, to the end of the war, and that he received the gratuity of $80. given to war's men; and he is returned as entitled to the bounty land of 100 acres, though it does not appear that it has ever been applied for.
The Henry Dow shown by the above records is, evidently, one and the same person.
The direct testimony of the witnesses and the circumstantial evidence from the records, showing the residence of the soldier to be at the same place where it is

proved the husband of Keziah Dow, read together with the fact that the records show only one Henry Dow as a soldier, tend to identify the husband with the soldier who performed the service shown. The testimony of the witness, as however, is very general, and if the case were now an original before me, I should desire more particular testimony to remove the doubts which the neglect of the party to claim the bounty land to which he was clearly entitled and other circumstances, are calculated to raise - and I should be more inclined to require it, because the very long services of the soldier shown by the records, and the reputation of service gained by ward men particularly, would indicate that it might readily be obtained.
With regard to the marriage - The bible to which reference is made in the papers, is not now before me for examination, though it is evident that it has heretofore been before the office. In the report in this case prepared by Judge Waldo, is a remark on this point, which, were it not for the fact, that the report was prepared by himself, I should think, must incorrectly state his views - "the record being in a foreign language,

would not be evidence". The principle thus stated if adopted, would operate very harshly. In Louisiana particularly, many private and many parish records are in the French language - and the family records of many immigrants are in foreign languages. Yet those records are now received and admitted by this Office as competent evidence. If properly made out and supported by proof and free from suspicion, I suppose such records are in law as in reason, competent evidence, though a translation may be necessary to understand them. So far then as the opinion of Judge Waldo against the sufficiency of the proof of marriage was founded upon this ground, I should dissent from it.
The brief of the case when formerly before Secretary Stuart clearly shows, that on the examination then, all the necessary facts were considered properly sustained by proof - and though as before remarked, if the claim were now an original before me I might, to make more certain, desire more evidence as to identity particularly, yet I should not be inclined to insist upon it, in the present state of the case.

There is however a question involved, which seems to me, important for consideration. This claim has been before a former Secretary of the Interior, by whom it was considered and determined. The evidence in the case, is the same now, as then. If then a different decision is now made by you, it must be, not on account of any different state of the case itself, but merely of difference of views concerning it.
The papers show clearly that the decision of the Secretary was founded upon no error or misapprehension of the facts, but solely upon the legal ground that the widow having died, the claim expired with her, and therefore could not be asserted by these heirs. Upon this point, I had occasion, to make some suggestions in my letter of the 19 th inst. to you upon the subject. The decision of the Secretary, though in an abstract legal view, right, yet was contrary to the general practice and to law, as established by that practice.
The question now arising in this case is not as to the right of the Department now to adopt views of law, different from those heretofore entertained, and so to apply

them to all original cases coming before it, for determination, but the much more narrow one, of the right of a succeeding Secretary, to revise the final action of his predecessor, and reverse it in a particular case, merely because of a difference of opinion. There are many authorities on this point, but I have not the books for reference. I would, however, refer to the opinion of Attorney General. Berrien, Decr 17. 1829, in Fitzgerald's case - Mayo & Moulton, new edn p. 386. Also of Secretary Ewing, April 19. 1850, in Cluett's case - Mayo & Moulton p. 573.
If there be any doubt of the illegality of such a revision, it seems to me there can be none with regard to the inapplicability of it. In this case, the amount involved, seems of much less consequence than the precedent which will be made, if the action of the former Secretary, is now reversed and the claim allowed.
I am, with much respect
Your obedient Servant
J. Minot
Commissioner
The Hon. Robert McClelland Secretary of The Interior

No 2
2
Secy of N. J. Record of Service & Pay
Return Aug 29 1846.

No. 1
Return of the Commissioned, Non Commissioned Officers and privates from the State of New Jersey under the command of Col Oliver Spencer specifying the counties and towns to which they respectively belong, under the Resolution of 15 Mar 1779
   Names County Town State     John Burrows Cap t Monmouth Freehold New Jersey   Sad. Broderick D o Sussex "   Sas. Bennet D o Morris Morris "   Benj. Matheny D o Gloucester Deptford "   Henry Dow Private Sussex Hardwick "  
After Returns
No. 2
Henry Dow private 2 d Regiment formerly Spencers from April 11. 1777 to Augt. 1. 1780 at 30/ - £ 83. 11. 10 Deduct S. Stores 4. 0. 0 £ 79. 11. 10 Returned by Col. Cummings.

State of New Jersey
I Charles G. McChesney Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey do hereby certify that the foregoing marked N o 1 is a true abstract from a Return of Col Spencers Regiment, and that N o 2 is a true abstract from Liber A of Auditors Accounts page 23. as taken from and compared with the originals now on file in my Office And I do further certify that it does not appear from the records in my Office, that there was any other person of the name of Henry Dow who served in the New Jersey line during the War of the Revolution.
In Testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of Office at Trenton this nineteenth day of August A. D. One thousand eight hundred and forty six.
Charles G. McChesney Secy of State